Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Ashok Kumar ... vs Bank Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Ashok Kumar ... vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 197/2020

Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of G-1, B-4/198, Abhimanyu Apartment, Opp.
Chitrakoot Stadium, Chitrakoot, Jaipur-302021 (Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Bank Of Maharashtra, Through Its General Manager- Hrm,
        Head Office 1501 Lokmangal Central Office, Shivaji Nagar,
        Pune (Maharashtra)
2.      Assistant General Manager, Hrm, Head Office 1501
        Lokmangal      Central        Office,        Shivaji     Nagar,    Pune
        (Maharashtra)
3.      Zonal Manager, Bank Of Maharashtra, 6Th Floor, Fortune
        Heights, Ahinsha Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharam Veer Tholia, Adv.

alongwith Mr. Himanshu Tholia, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

15/07/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

1. That the impugned transfer order dated 23.01.2019 and the consequential relieving order dated 21.12.2019 may kindly be declared arbitrary and accordingly be quashed and set aside.

2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(2 of 4) [CW-197/2020]

3. Cost of writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 23.01.2019 whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Zonal Office, Jaipur Region to Zonal Office,

Mumbai Region.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no

administrative exigency in transfer of the petitioner, moreover the

transfer order was passed on 23.01.2019 whereas the

consequential relieving order was passed after a delay of eleven

months on 21.12.2019. Counsel further submits that even after

passing of the transfer order, the petitioner has been given

additional charge of Mumbai Sub Region Jaipur and Ahmedabad,

therefore there is no need to implement the transfer order dated

23.01.2019. Counsel further submits that the respondents have

violated the transfer policy.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

submitted that the petitioner is working at Jaipur for last about

eleven years. Counsel further submits that the respondents have

transferred the petitioner due to administrative exigency.

Counsel further submits that since by an interim order

passed by this court dated 04.02.2020, the petitioner was allowed

to continue to work at his present place of posting, therefore, the

respondents obeying the interim order, handed over the additional

charge for Mumbai City, Jaipur and Ahmedabad to the petitioner at

his present place of posting itself. Counsel further submits that the

employee has no right to continue at a particular place of his

choice.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

(3 of 4) [CW-197/2020]

the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan

Pandit and Anr. Reported (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in

para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:-

"3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view.

4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval".